“Right to choose” is glaring exception to progressive ideology
by Kelli
The truth hurts, but liberals need to hear it. One of progressivism’s — aka modern liberalism’s — greatest ironies is that abortion on demand is nigh impossible to reconcile with the rest of progressive theory. As I’ve written before here and elsewhere, the “right to choose” is the glaring exception to nearly everything the left believes.
In economics, health care, education, gun use, environmental regulation, and even religious faith and political speech, progressives make the individual’s choices and desires subservient to what they consider the greater good of those in need. Despite the rising popularity of the absolutist “bodily autonomy” defense these days, more often than not it’s the only form of autonomy its proponents recognize.
To believe in involuntary wealth redistribution for the poor and sick, forced subsidization of contraceptives, and compulsory participation in private ceremonies (just to name a few) — while not believing that a mother owes the neediest and most helpless of all the simple mercy of letting him or her live — is a sick joke. This “radically inclusive” ideology is “constantly looking” for new pockets of society the rest of us must sacrifice to assist, but thinks the deepest possible familial bond is meaningless.
~ Calvin Freiburger, Live Action News, February 10
[Comic (click to enlarge) via commonsenseevaluation.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Does our friend hate seatbelts and airbags too?
He doesn’t seem to understand that ‘progressivism’/’liberalism’ is all about equity and improving things for everybody.
Reality there is a point that some stuff is against what would be actually liberal. I don’t see any justification for limiting soda size, for one. I don’t believe adults are children, who can’t decide how much soda they can drink. And of course you already know that I think abortion is very anti-liberal. Liberalism is about equity for everyone, not allowing people to be killed at whim. You can’t be progressive when an entire demographic of people is subject to death at another’s choice, that’s about as anti-progressive as you can get. Along with the minor points about limiting soda size and such, that’s really anti-liberal.
But yeah, I think his points are wrong about the other stuff. I think throwing stuff like universal healthcare in there is ridiculous. Fact: universal healthcare wouldn’t be about making anyone “sacrifice”, countries with universal healthcare have better outcomes overall for health markers. And wealthy people would still be able to obtain special services whenever they wanted, that’s the happy part about being wealthy. The difference is that poor people would be able to access care too. I wish we had gone for a universal healthcare system instead of Obamacare.
It’s the same thing with liberal education and immigration policies, to name a few. It’s not about punishing anyone’s individual choices or bringing everyone down, it’s about providing equity and making sure everyone has the basics. People are still able to go above and beyond if they have the means, it’s just that people need to have access to the basics of life regardless of their means.
Progressivism is all about ripping their bodies to shreds for profit. Your claims of supporting equality and improvement are hollow. Equality would dictate that if you really were all about punishing the child for the crime of existing, you’d ground her for nine months or deduct nine months of her first paycheck and give it to mom, not kill her for growing nine months in her mother’s womb. Progressivism is about destroying every last organic bond of person to person so that everything belongs to the State, so the State can create some happy utopia. It’s applied utilitarianism that sacrifices the individual as an instrument for the good of the collective. No better way to destroy natural bonds and instrumentalize human beings than to sever the most intimate bond on earth, mother to child.
He doesn’t seem to understand that ‘progressivism’/’liberalism’ is all about equity and improving things for everybody. … everybody, that is, except for those not yet born.
Reality, question, should a struggling woman in a difficult financial spot have the freedom to avoid taxes to pay for Social Security?
You can’t be progressive when an entire demographic of people is subject to death at another’s choice, that’s about as anti-progressive as you can get.
Nicely said Jack.
Okay everyone, don’t feed the opening troll.
But we have to JDC. “reality” is under the impression that progressivism/liberalism is about equity when I informed him time and time again that equity is not possible under any political system. Even in socialist nations equity does not exist. He won’t hear that but that is exactly the truth: there is no equal access to anything and never will be due to so many factors. In addition, he also fails to comprehend that “improving” something for someone will always mean disfranchising someone else (or maybe some just want to remain disfranchised because this progressivism allows them to do so). Again, true in any political system. He prefers the “choice” over the unborn. So this is not supporting his equity argument at all..
One commenter said it best not too long ago: your rights end where my begin. There is a limit to this progressivism/liberalism that “reality” and those in his camp don’t want to accept.
Chris, so well said!!
I can’t help but be amused at some of my “socialist” and “progressive” co workers. They make great money, have beautiful homes, which is fine, its their money. Obviously they redistribute very little. That’s what everyone else is supposed to do. One was quite put out that Romney didn’t want to subsidize “Big Bird”. I told her to donate to the local public television if its that important to her, lord knows she can afford to. Well, huff and puff, “the government”, i.e. the taxpayers, should pay for it. Perish the thought it come directly out of her or her friends’ pockets. I told her I think Special Olympics is a very great and important cause as well, so I donate MY own money. What a novel concept.
Hi Eric!!
Great to see you here my friend!!
“Liberal” has several definitions, but all of the good ones have something to do with supporting personal liberty and/or personal generosity.
“Progressive” is a euphemism for socialism, and it means increasing central control and planning by government and bureaucracy.
As p0litical philosophies, the liberalism and progressivism are incompatible and result in catastrophic collision.
In practice, the label of “liberal” has been stolen by the progressive party. There are no liberals left on the Left. The current generation of Democrats are not Liberals — they are Elitist Totalitarian Dictators.
That is why they have so much trouble with the Constitution — the US Constitution is founded in liberty and personal responsibility. The are things that modern Progressives cannot abide.
I’m treading carefully into these waters… haha.
Okay, so I overall agree with this. It’s rank hypocrisy when people try to tell you what to do and control your choices – except when there’s an unborn life involved, then yeah sure. Kill em.
But I will say that I digress from many of my Republican friends in the issue that, as I’ve aged (lol it would be funny if you knew how young I am), I’ve actually come to see a lot of good points in the progressive POV. (Oh good heavens stop the presses!! We’re all going to die. All pro-lifers are not homogeneous).
Anyway. Like DLPL says… for healthcare, if we’re going to that route (which I don’t agree with but that’s a fight for another day – if ever), we ought to have just gone universal instead of this confusing conglomerate of hell we currently have. It took a bad system and made it worse. So there’s that.
Also, I’m with you on the immigration policies. Abso-freakin-lutely. We need better policies and by better I don’t mean bigger, badder fences and drones obliterating any living thing moving in a remotely U.S.-ly direction. Immigrants are generally an asset to this country and we ought to admit them. The only thing I’d ask is that they respect our constitution – but then again, our own people don’t. :(
But DLPL, I just don’t necessarily agree with you on education. Liberal education – if it’s classically liberal – is great. But what we have now is a mess and is turning kids off of learning. Common Core is anti-liberal, in the definition of what I think you are using.
LibertyBelle it’s hard for me because I’ve never been to school, so I don’t have a good idea of what school is like or what would work. I do see things that could be better though. Why are we encouraging all kids to go to college? Not everyone is cut out for college, we should be identifying who is struggling scholastically in high school or maybe even middle school and maybe find them trade apprenticeships and things lime that. I think education should be responsive to the individual, some people are great at working with their hands, some are good with computers, some are great at science, etc. we should be giving people an opportunity early to get a good stable career set up and tailoring it to each kid. I just got a job as a mechanic a little bit ago, it pays well and I’m good at it. I wouldn’t have done well in school. The world needs mechanics and plumbers and contractors and other tradespeople just as much as we need educated people. So yeah the education system needs an overhaul and I don’t think Common Core is the way to go.
I do agree Del, that the Democratic Party seems to have co-opted the label liberal. When I say I tend liberal people think I’m a Democrat, when no, I’m not. It’s not an accurate label for me.
Okay now that we can absolutely agree on (the school thing). Though in truth, we actually agree on quite a few things actually lol.
I don’t understand the obsession with college. I think the earlier years ought to be more intensive and cover the basics but prep people to live life. There needs to be less pressure to go to “real college” and help students figure out what they need or want to do with their lives and it’s okay if it’s something that you can be certified for in two years or less. That’s okay. SO many kids go to college beacuse it’s what’s expected, and yet so few finish or they waste years of their lives and pile on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt trying to figure out what it is needs to be done.
And yes, I want to take back the word liberal as well. To many of my friends, liberal was a bad word. Until I got older and learned that, technically speaking, liberal was more in line with my philosophies and did not mean Democrat.
Either way, I believe every human deserves a chance at life. Every. Single. One. No one should be executed just because they had the misfortune of being created by the wrong people at the wrong time. It’s sick and wrong.
Oh Hi Del! I didn’t see your comment. Right on, good sir (ma’am?).
Sorry I can’t remember….
LibertyBelle says:
February 11, 2014 at 1:53 pm
Oh Hi Del! I didn’t see your comment. Right on, good sir (ma’am?). Sorry I can’t remember….
Thank you!
FYI: I am an eccentric, middle-aged dude who smokes a pipe and wears American-style Utilikilts when the temperature if above 40 degrees.
I of course see what the author is saying. It is inconsistent if you give (all!?) progressives the qualities of empathy and sincerity. But if you consider the self-righteousness and pragmatism that is both cause and effect of the mindset (for many) eliminating the weak for the benefit of the collective is perfectly sensible. If we have to take care of everyone equally, let’s just redefine who “everyone” is (thus actually restructuring society and who the eveyone is). Also, we also know it’s ultimately “sentient suffering” (to borrow a key phrase from x) that progressives are concerned with, with a further fixation on what can be readily seen and observed.
I can’t help but be amused at some of my “socialist” and “progressive” co workers.
Many years ago I worked as a legal secretary, I job I really hated. Most of the lawyers were liberal/progressive, yet they had barely concealed disdain for the “help,” including me. One day this big shot lawyer snapped his fingers at me. He wanted me to open his mail, but he couldn’t bring himself to speak to a lowly clerical worker.
I don’t understand the obsession with college.
I agree. Not everyone is college material and not everyone wants to go. We should emulate the German apprenticeship system, where young people are paid to study skilled trades. I don’t think that would happen, though, because there is so much stigma attached to those of us who work with their hands.
I was reading an article in the New York Times about the stray dog problem in Sochi. There was so much rage and indignation at the treatment of these animals. It is a sad story, yet I bet many of the comment writers think nothing of aborting a baby at 20 weeks.
haha good to know, Del. :)
Phillymiss are you serious?! That is so …. that disgusts me and makes me freaking LIVID. I am so so so so sorry that that happened to you. Ugh. I don’t know why people look down on those who do manual labor. I’ve done it before. Talk about feeling invisible, though. Some people just don’t see the people who break their backs working for them. That’s why everywhere I go, I try to look people in the eye and speak kindly to them – especially people like secretaries, workers, etc.
BTW Del I must’ve seen you in the mountains a while back. Hahah.
Hi Mary, good to see you – I always enjoy your comments. I’ve been a Special Olympics volunteer, and it is awesome to spend time with the athletes.
Hi Eric.
Thank you.
I love volunteering as well. My favorite is bowling. I think SO is such an incredible organization.
Del… Utilikilts for the win!!!
I informed him time and time again that equity is not possible under any political system. – exaggeration much! At least some of us think it’s woth making an effort rather than just resorting to the ‘law of the jungle’.
“improving” something for someone will always mean disfranchising someone else – that simply is not true. Do you feel donating to charity disenfranchises you “thomas r.”?
This is an educational blogline. I apologize to any liberals I may have insulted in the past because I unfairly bundled them with progressives.
Does anyone remember the Special Olympics bowler who offered to challenge Obama after he made that crack about it? And he was also black.
Hi phillymiss, 2:44PM
What an outrage, like he was summoning a trained dog.
“improving” something for someone will always mean disfranchising someone else – that simply is not true. Do you feel donating to charity disenfranchises you “thomas r.”?
It depends Einstein… Some charities take 80 percent off the top for overhead and only about 20 percent or even less ends up going to the cause. I am sure you’ve read about this issue somewhat rampant nowadays, or maybe not since you only read liberal sources, my bad :)
My family ended up in a disfranchised position a few times after having donated to some of those.
I think the trick is to familiarize oneself fully with a particular charity before donating. Hope this helps….
I’m well aware of some charities consuming excessive percentages of donations “thomas r.”, that’s why I’m very selective about which ones I give to.
Assuming you are astute enough to follow your own observation and know which ones to donate to, does your donating to improve someone else’s life disenfranchise you?
Another example. Allowing same-sex marriage improves the lives of some people. But it doesn’t disenfranchise anyone else.
You may also wish to note that your assertion that I only read ‘liberal sources’ is self-evidently erroneous.
Same-sex marriage disfranchises an entire population Einstein. It has far reaching consequences beyond the tip of one’s nose (and incidentally your comments reflect the belief that everything is all about the tip of one’s nose). Think about some of that and get back to me.
So you score one with appropriate donating. Have some wine on me :)
Same-sex marriage disfranchises an entire population Einstein. – well that’s an interesting concept Galileo, how do you come to that? Would it end your marriage or turn you gay or something?
It has far reaching consequences beyond the tip of one’s nose – everything has consequences, but same-sex marriage doesn’t disenfranchise anyone. Homophobes and bigots can still be homophobes and bigots.
Think about some of that and get back to me.
So you score one with appropriate donating. Have some wine on me – I did :-)
Novel concept for you I see “reality” and so let me enlighten you bit more. Same-sex marriage disfranchises an entire population not this minute perhaps as you seem to think that applies but by disturbing the natural law of mankind and thus causing an imbalance in the procreational aspect of that natural law long-term. The small percentage of homosexuality that exists in other species does not nullify the natural law in the least. We have a responsibility to our species in terms of maintaining the natural law intact for it benefits our progeny. Let me know if this is over your head…..
No it doesn’t Thomas, it doesn’t hurt you at all. Which you’ll see in a few years. It won’t hurt you and I hope you’ll all feel dumb when everything is just fine. And LGBT people are just fine according to nature thank you very much.
That’s all I’ll say on the thread, I’m unsubscribing now so sorry if you reply, I won’t answer.
Same-sex marriage disenfranchises no one.
disturbing the natural law of mankind and thus causing an imbalance in the procreational aspect of that natural law long-term. – same-sex marriage doesn’t change the number of homosexuals. It changes nothing apart from same-sex folk being able to get married.
The small percentage of homosexuality that exists in other species does not nullify the natural law in the least. – ditto for humans. Homosexuality is not a recent phenomenon.
We have a responsibility to our species in terms of maintaining the natural law intact for it benefits our progeny. – again, it won’t change the number of homosexuals so there will be zero change to so-called ‘natural law’ or ‘progeny’.
Let me know if this is over your head….. – I have to wonder where yours is, because this is obviously waaaay over yours, even though it’s not at all complicated.
All that above talk about “number of homosexuals remaining unchanged” leads me to conclude that you concede that the natural law of mankind takes precedence. Homosexuality contributes nothing to the natural law and never will….
Homosexuality is a part of your so-called ‘natural law’ Thomas R. It is a fundamental element of mankind.
So is my appendix a part of my internal organs but is serves no biological purpose (is not a fundamental element). And when it becomes inflamed, the rest of the body suffers and may even result in sepsis. I can survive without my appendix just fine.
Homosexuality does not benefit mankind one iota.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-function-of-t/
So you are saying that folk who for whatever reason are incapable of reproduction are of no benefit to mankind?
I don’t think the loss of redheadedness or left-handedness would be terribly deleterious to mankind either. Do you wish to start a campaign?
Homosexuality does no harm, that’s all that matters. If it did then evolution would have expunged it.
I know I said I wouldn’t comment again, but Thomas are you really talking about getting rid of LGBT people? And that the existence of such people is akin to an inflamed appendix, infecting everyone in the society? Wow man. That’s a whole new level of bigotry here.
Have you had your nipples excised ‘thomas r.”?
I feel like some people currently living in the US and may or may not regularly post on this blog… would feel more comfortable in Uganda.
Thomas are you talking about homosexuality or homosexual marriage?
Because, even as a Christian who believes homosexual behavior is a sin, I have no problem and even love (gah!! run away! I’m probably secretly a lesbian you guyz) homosexual people. And as to homosexual marriage…. I don’t know. I feel like marriage is so decimated as it is, what with the divorce rate and so many young people just opting not to get married at all that letting gays marry is not going to really affect the already overturned boat, y’know?
And that’s not to say I’m against marriage. But at this point, there needs to be a separation of Christian marriages and state unions anyway. Even Christians have trampled on “God’s design” for marriage. Is “God’s design” to cheat on your wife of 25 years? Is His design to be like, “Oh, oops, you changed and I don’t really like you anymore so I’m gonna go find myself now kthanksbai.”
It’s not. I agree that the state of marriage and Christian marriage is pretty sad. But I’d argue that maybe for tax and legal purposes, let anyone get a civil union. Sure, why not? But christians should view their marriage as different, holy, in a church.
And I do think it’s wrong for gays to force morally opposed ministers to perform their unions, but that’s a freedom of religion issue.
I am commenting about both actually: homosexuality and homosexual marriage. “reality” argues that homosexuality is a fundamental part of mankind. I disagree as it clearly serves no purpose in terms of anything related to moving our genes forward. Many took exception to my appendix analogy but it was strictly to illustrate the insignificance of homosexuality in the natural design/God’s plan.
DLPL is incorrect in assuming that I want homosexual individuals to disappear. Every human being has intrinsic and extrinsic value to his/her society at large. At the core this is what humanity is about. I ONLY take issue with the expression of homosexuality in that society.
Opposing homosexuality as the norm is not to be confused with opposing the individual with same sex attraction.
“reality:” “Have you had your nipples excised ‘thomas r.”?”
NO. Do my nipples interest you that much? (bleh) :(
Well God put the appendix there for a reason. ;)
Thomas male nipples are useless except I guess pleasure for some dudes or for piercings lol. So, logically, if we’re getting rid of everything that’s “useless” all men should remove their nipples. You first.
And homosexuality will never be the “norm”, it will always be the minority, and will always be a tiny part of humanity. Which is why I don’t get why you guys whine so much about this particular issue. No fault divorce has caused demonstrably, undeniably much more damage to family and society but you’ll pick on like 5% of the population for wanting to get married to someone of the same gender. Legal marriage, no one is clamoring for the Catholic Church to marry them. Seems like a waste of energy on your part. And it’s very rude to compare humans to infected organs.
I did not discuss removing my appendix so that jump to my nipples, don’t know about “reality” anymore. :)
Well, for the th time – I was referring to homosexuality not any individual person. But whatever at this point.
Thanks for moderating this heated exchange Libertybelle, I appreciate the interjection of humor :)
I’m not heated! I’m cool as a cucumber.
But yeah, you can’t really excise humanity of homosexuality. Individuals with same sex attractions will exist regardless of how oppressive or not the society is towards the behavior. Some of these individuals will choose to act on their same sex attractions, just like people choose all kinds of behaviors, condemned or not, sin or not.
I just think it’s rather weird y’all can talk about homosexuality as if it has nothing to do with same sex attracted people, and think your generalizations don’t cause harm no matter how rude because you think you’re directing it at behavior not humans. But whatevs, I’m over the thread. Peace out.
The problem is Jack, it is US evangelical groups lobbying and coercing governments in some countries which is contributing to the introduction of gay-hate laws.
Your nipples are of less use than your appendix Watson.
If you’re not going to agitate against appendixes “thomas r.”, why agitate against homosexuality?
And I do think it’s wrong for gays to force morally opposed ministers to perform their unions, but that’s a freedom of religion issue. – which is why it isn’t happening.
“The problem is Jack, it is US evangelical groups lobbying and coercing governments in some countries which is contributing to the introduction of gay-hate laws.”
I mean, Uganda could focus on the dozens of rapes per day including against children (and men, so I guess their gay hate could come handy against a man that rapes another man), but instead they’ll listen to some bitter homophobes who are upset they can’t imprison or kill gay people in the US with impunity anymore. I have no use for any of that noise and I’m glad I was born in the US in this time period. People still worry me here though.
And before anyone jumps on me I’m being totally sarcastic, I realize homophobia is way more likely to be used against a male victim of rape than the perpetrator, just like negative attitudes towards sex are more likely to be used against female rape victims than the perp. Uganda is just awful right now for anyone who’s not a straight guy who was never assaulted, and I think the organizations here that encouraged those attitudes and hateful laws should be charged.